Talk:Kraków/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Starting review.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A good article is&mdash;

 :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Rather a lot of images. The initial impression is not good. The layout is too messy, cluttered and confused. Will fail 1(a) for layout.

Images are forced.

Structure follows guidelines apart from placing Etymology section at the start.

The History section is rather long.

This is a big subject, so reviewing this may take a little bit of time. I also note that there have been editing issues in the past, and there are signs of edit conflicts still in place.

I notice a variety of challengable statements uncited.

Kraków deserves to have a decent article, but I'm unsure from first impressions that what we have is quite there yet. I'll be taking a closer look later, but I suspect there is a fair amount of work to be done for a GA tag.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm making some simple edits to declutter the article. It was very busy with overlarge images of different sizes which was rather distracting. I notice that this issue has been brought up in at least one previous review. I've also moved Etymology as the City guidelines have an accepted layout of sections which works well.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lead needs to be looked at to ensure it reflects the contents. And the History section needs trimming. If this is not addressed shortly, then I'll tackle it.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on addressing some of the issues as I see them, though the more I work on this article the more that I see there is a fair amount of work to do (I noticed today some cite tags that needed sorting). I am getting to the point where I feel I am about to cross over from being a reviewer to being a contributor, and it would be inappropriate for me to continue. As such I feel the best course of action is for me to close this GAN; then continue working on it to bring it up to standard. DIfficult to say how long it will take to bring it up to standard - but given the background reading involved and my own sporadic WikiTime, probably a month.

Article not passed as a GA:

Fails 1a - Lead section needs to comply with MoS - expand to reflect more closely the content. Fails 2 - Some statements need supporting, and refs need checking - there are dead links. Fails 3 - Possibly. This needs closer examination. Difficult at the moment to work out the priority of information importance. History section still needs trimming. Culture sections needs sorting out. I have brought in a bunch of material which needs sorting.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)